HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cornelis, W. M. Articles by Hartmann, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cornelis, W. M. Articles by Hartmann, R. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Cornelis, W. M. Articles by Hartmann, R. Related Collections Soil Erosion Water Content Water Retention/Capillary Pressure

A Conceptual Model to Predict the Deflation Threshold Shear Velocity as Affected by Near-Surface Soil Water

II. Calibration and Verification

Ghent University, Dep. Soil Management and Soil Care, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Particle impact on the saltiphone (in number of particles per second i) vs. time from the first impact. Notice that the value of i was always equal to 10.1 which is the smallest possible value that can be measured with the saltiphone, and which is associated with the algorithm that is used (see Spaan and van den Abeele, 1991). This does not necessarily mean that the number of impacting particles was 10.1.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Pan evaporation Epan vs. temperature T at different free-stream wind velocities u, under the experimental conditions in the wind tunnel.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Observed threshold shear velocity u*tw data vs. gravimetric water content w data for dune sand with particle-size range of (a) 100 to 200, (b) 50 to 500, (c) 200 to 500 µm, and (d) sand loam soil aggregates with particle-size range of 100 to 200 µm, (e) 200 to 300, and (f) 300 to 500 µm. Also plotted is Eq. [1] with A from Eq. [2] and A3 = 3 x 1014 N–1 m–1. The oven-dry data are from Cornelis and Gabriels (2004).

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The term for the forces acting on dry particles resting on a surface bed and exposed to a fluid stream (Y in Eq. [1]) vs. the term for the force due to wet bonding between two particles (X in Eq. [1]).

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Simulations of u*tw using Eq. [1] and [2] for varying values of the coefficient A3 vs. gravimetric water content w. The simulations are for sand with d = 250 µm and w1.5 = 0.019 kg kg–1.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Threshold shear velocities u*tw predicted with the model of Chepil (1956) (Eq. [6]) vs. threshold shear velocities u*tw predicted with the model presented in this study (Eq. [1] and [2]).

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The different moment factors MF acting on a wetted particle at rest vs. particle diameter d.